New £23k Benefit Cap.

[legotits]

AIBU to ask if anyone still supports this?

Which families is this targeted at?

Anyone who will be affected, is it even feasible to not be pushed into debt?

Anyone who thinks living on benefits is the easy options should go and see I Daniel Blake. Took my dcs to see it at the weekend - we live in the country described by Cannotseeanend (I think) - the cinema was packed. Go and see it and stay for the credits where Ken Loach thanks the DWP employees he consulted, but were too scared to be named.

There does seem to be this principle operating on mumsnet: those who absolutely cannot work must be supported adequately by the state.

Unless they are children.

There does seem to be this principle operating on mumsnet: those who absolutely cannot work must be supported adequately by the state.

Unless they are children.

I would support a radical change to benefits for people fit to work, bringing it in line with the Swiss system. Ie you get proper, really good benefits for 2-3 years while you retrain and look for work, which you can easily afford to do - even relocate, as well as buy equipment and clothing etc. After 2/3 years, the drop off is sharp and painful, thus discouraging people staying long term unemployed, but at the same time preventing the poverty trap where people cannot afford to do the things they need to do to find employment.

In some parts I agree with it, in others no. I don't think benefits = not working and having 3+ children. We do have a population issue and I think they are trying too address this by reducing benefits. I would cap CB to the first child only based on mums NI with allowances for twins etc

The problem with the alternative social security systems described which take into account individual circumstances is that it would cost more to implement them here than would be saved - these benefit changes are all about cuts - saving money - not having a fairer system. Building more social housing would be a saving in the long term and would create thousands of jobs at the same time, but no one in charge is in it for the long term - they want savings now.

It is a very interesting thread. Thank you to everyone on all sides for posting. Most seem to agree we need incentives to work. Most of us agree that we need a safety net particularly for the genuinely disabled who in particular cannot work. I don't think we are all that far apart actually.

Also those on the left saying those of us with a different political position want no welfare safety net are wrong. We do want one. We just want it to be insufficiently generous to incentivise part time or no work and to stop people seeking promotions.

Also the left leaning posters presumably agree that very few people in the Uk are affected by the benefits cap who are on benefits anyway so I expect they cannot really have too much of a problem with it.

Also those of us London who work full time we could never ever afford to live right in the centre, ever in 30 years of working full time and we have to leave children all day including small babies and travel in for 40 minutes standing up on packed tube trains to commute to work or as someone else above has to do travel for nights at a time for work at times leaving our children. We do that willingtly although it's not fun and our taxes go to provide a safety net for the less well off and we accept and want that safety net but we don't want it to enable people not to work when they have small children when we are slogging our guts out, moving from areas where our family is and not being able to live in W1 with awful commutes.

Of course people don't know they will become ill or lose a breadwinner man (or woman) to support them or be made redundant. That is why I support the welfare state. However you can save up in advance before the hard times in many jobs ; you can buy insurance. Someone above bought their own house (and now lives on £400 a month in harder times which of course is hard but at least the house is bought =- wise person) and you can have the children you can afford.

Many mumnetters - I could guess 33% - 50% would have had more children had their family earned more. They hugely resent it when others on benefits have more children which is denied to them.

Moving to where the work is does not necessarily mean london. The SE is not the only place with a functioning economy!

Unless they are children. Yes but the parents must take responsibility for their children, not just the state.

Everyone who is able should be taking every opportunity to make themselves employable, like training and volunteering.

We live in country with a great education system, opportunity and birth control!

"Most of us agree that we need a safety net particularly for the genuinely disabled who in particular cannot work."

Children can't work.

Shouldn't they be protected from homelessness and deprivation? If their parents can't protect them?

"Yes but the parents must take responsibility for their children, not just the state."

Well, they should , but some parents seem to be unable to support their children through work.

There have always been people like this in our culture. People who are a bit dim, or very immature. Or who just aren't really employable. I know parents like this. They love their children, they're not horrible, but I wouldn't employ them in a million years because they're not reliable - they have slightly crappy physical or mental health, are disorganised, flakey, unskilled, uneducated.

So what happens to these children now the state will no longer guarantee them an income sufficient to keep a roof over their heads?

"Yes but the parents must take responsibility for their children, not just the state."

Well, they should , but some parents seem to be unable to support their children through work.

There have always been people like this in our culture. People who are a bit dim, or very immature. Or who just aren't really employable. I know parents like this. They love their children, they're not horrible, but I wouldn't employ them in a million years because they're not reliable - they have slightly crappy physical or mental health, are disorganised, flakey, unskilled, uneducated.

So what happens to these children now the state will no longer guarantee them an income sufficient to keep a roof over their heads?

Minifigerz
Are these the sort of people you want to be producing children? I think that the state (orphanages) should be the last resort for raising children but better that than letting children suffer dim parents who can't care for them. How would the children of such people turn out if left with them? Most likley dependant on the rat of us.

So what happens to these children now the state will no longer guarantee them an income sufficient to keep a roof over their heads?

The argument is though that 20k/23k is sufficient to keep a roof over their heads.

Plenty of people manage on less, working or not.

Well, they should , but some parents seem to be unable to support their children through work.

they're not reliable - they have slightly crappy physical or mental health, are disorganised, flakey, unskilled, uneducated. But they shouldn't be disorganised, unskilled or especially uneducated. This isn't a good skill set to be having children.

Not many are up against the benefits cap to be honest of that category of the feckless parents. The benefits cap is more a symbol of support for full time working middle earning working parent couples. For those that are int hat position the answer is to move them which is happening. Nothing wrong with places like Luton and Milton Keynes (or even Sunderland - I am from the NE) if you will never work,they are no worse than King's Cross. If the parents really cannot look after their children then sometimes (and I am not a fan of this particularly) we do have to take the children away to live with grandparents or aunts and uncles or in extreme cases foster parents.

I think what makes it worse is through rug pulling. And the high rents have alot to answer for. It's not always as simple as just move what about support. Upset of the children their education ect. My council encourage people to rent private it's madness

So what should be done about people who simply aren't capable of training or holding down a job? Who don't think to save or think before having children, who maybe aren't very bright? Have they just to be left homeless and starving as punishment? I always ask this on these threads and nobody answers. These people may frustrate some of you but they exist and they have children.

Kids put in foster care omg.

Plenty of people manage on less, working or not

Where? Who?

*plenty of people manage on less, working or not

Where? Who?*

Me.

There isn't enough room.in the care system for children being abused so there isn't going to be room for thousands who are born to poor parents.

Putting kids in foster care costs 150-400 per week per child just for the foster care place, then lots of social work reviews etc. Foster kids have much higher rates of ending up in care homes, residentials, secures so that will cost 1k-10k per kid per week plus associated review costs. And these kids have much higher rates of ending up in institutions as adults, so again alot of money.

Children who remain with birth parents who love them and try hard for them despite lacking some skills can turn out great, with a little cheap help of benefits can have food provided and access education like every other child so they can have a fair chance.

Removing children from birth parents unless there is abuse or extreeme neglect is hugely damaging and costs much more in the long term.